Linux kernel hardeners Grsecurity sue Bruce Perens (Register) [LWN.net]

Linux kernel hardeners Grsecurity sue Bruce Perens (Register)

Posted Aug 4, 2017 13:54 UTC (Fri) by ledow (guest, #11753)
Parent article: Linux kernel hardeners Grsecurity sue Bruce Perens (Register)

Okay,

According to: https://govtribe.com/vendor/open-source-security-inc-alex...

Open Source Security Inc. has:

$140K annual revenue / 1 employee(s)

(Hello, Mr Bradley Spengler / PaXTeam on here, I believe)

But the court filing seeks relief of $2m, with $1m "punishment".

How can you justify 14 times your annual revenue (not even profit) in loss or damage because of one guy making a website post? That's just LUDICROUS. Proving those kinds of damages will be enormously tricky given that you COULDN'T be hurt for that amount of money from a single incident, much less prove it.

Sure, there's probably some legal games (where you can't up your damages if you later find them to be more than you thought, etc. so you start high and expect the court to decimate it), but that's just hilarious.

Honestly, I hope he pushes his "company" (of one person) into the ground with this. It's just a shame that he tries to take others with him. I hope there are some pro bono people out there helping out Mr Perens.

Linux kernel hardeners Grsecurity sue Bruce Perens (Register)

Posted Aug 7, 2017 0:07 UTC (Mon) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link] (1 responses)

Bruce doesn't need pro-bono. GrSecurity will be paying his legal fees after Bruce wins the Anti-SLAPP motion his lawyers are preparing right now.

GrSecurity is going to deeply regret filing this. Bruce has a very high caliber law firm on his side, this type of firm can bill a million dollars in a week. And when you win an Anti-SLAPP motion you are practically guaranteed to win legal fees, particularly in California where the suit was filed. I'm not aware of a single Anti-SLAPP motion that was won in Cali that didn't result in an award of legal fees.

Linux kernel hardeners Grsecurity sue Bruce Perens (Register)

Posted Aug 7, 2017 17:56 UTC (Mon) by dbaker (guest, #89236) [Link]

That's because California's Anti-SLAPP law is brilliant, it doesn't allow the judge to not award fees if the defendant succeeds with the motion; at least, that's what Ken White says in the blog post you linked to ;)